5 ms·

So you'd ignore one of the most horrific and important examples of widely accepted science going wrong because of an internet meme?

lotsofpulp 9y ago
Science didn't go wrong. The data was bad, the processes were bad, there was no replication. How was that science?
- genericone 9y ago
  I think that is simply another misinterpretation of what people mean when the word science is used. What was said above was "one of the most horrific and important examples of widely accepted science". Important words here are "widely accepted science". So science didn't go wrong, the LABEL of science was attached to something that didn't meet the scientific method. That something was then sold to people in power, and the science LABEL was used to convince people of the correctness of that something.
- foldr 9y ago
  >The data was bad, the processes were bad, there was no replication. People are really quick to say this, but how many people have actually studied the 'racial science' literature of the 20s and 30s and figured out to what extent it meets the methodological standards of today? Yes, we know that they drew incorrect (and reprehensible) conclusions. It doesn't necessarily follow that their methods were any worse (epistemically speaking) than methods that currently pass muster.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    Studies about people in general are of poor quality, due to difficult to define metrics. Even today, psychology and sociology studies aren't rigorous for the simple reason that it's hard to measure these things. Biological studies are hard too, it's hard to suss out the confounding variables and mechanisms of bodily functions. Just the premise of the "racial science" studies would render them invalid, how could they even have controlled for the myriad variables that we have no idea how to control today?
    - foldr 9y ago
      Which studies are you referring to? If you don't have anything specific in mind, then you can't really judge the quality or compare it to the quality of comparable research today.
      - lotsofpulp 9y ago
        As I wrote above, studies about people, which the aforementioned Nazi stuff would fall into. I don't have a specific study in mind, but I do know that the further you stray from math/physics/chemistry, creating metrics and isolating variables is very, very difficult. I don't need a specific study to know that. Any sociology/economic/psychology research should be taken with a grain of salt.
        foldr 9y ago
        >Any sociology/economic/psychology research should be taken with a grain of salt. So how is that not an example of "science going wrong"? Unless you are proposing that science is right by definition, or that governments should ignore most of the branches of science that are actually relevant to government. There are plenty of branches of physics that are at least as speculative as sociology, economics and psychology (e.g. cosmology). The only difference is that these branches of physics have few political implications.
        lotsofpulp 9y ago
        It's not going wrong, unless it's making conclusive statements that are beyond the strengths of the study. That's why I say grain of salt. I understand what you're saying, but my point is that it's not science or the scientific method that results in undesirable outcomes, such as the Nazi example, but just a lack of any other good option. Governments (and people) should evaluate the merits of the information they receive. Properly conducted and repeated experiments with noted mechanisms of actions (e.g. vaccines) should have more weight than studies about trickle down wealth or whatever. Obviously, decisions have to be made, and some will be wrong unfortunately.
emodendroket 9y ago
The citation of "Godwin's law" in this way is so tiresome. Firstly, the law just says that Nazis will come up -- not that bringing them up necessarily invalidates one's argument. Godwin himself has endorsed likening some groups to Nazis. More importantly, the example of the Nazis is useful in an ethical argument, because they're an almost universally acknowledged example of evil. Much like we aim to test our programs with extreme inputs, we can use the "extreme input" of Nazism to test our ethical arguments. If I posit some universal ethical standard, and then find that it doesn't seem to work if we take the Nazis, we've proven by counterexample that my standard is not universal after all.

lotsofpulp 9y ago

Science didn't go wrong. The data was bad, the processes were bad, there was no replication. How was that science?

genericone 9y ago
I think that is simply another misinterpretation of what people mean when the word science is used. What was said above was "one of the most horrific and important examples of widely accepted science". Important words here are "widely accepted science". So science didn't go wrong, the LABEL of science was attached to something that didn't meet the scientific method. That something was then sold to people in power, and the science LABEL was used to convince people of the correctness of that something.
foldr 9y ago
>The data was bad, the processes were bad, there was no replication. People are really quick to say this, but how many people have actually studied the 'racial science' literature of the 20s and 30s and figured out to what extent it meets the methodological standards of today? Yes, we know that they drew incorrect (and reprehensible) conclusions. It doesn't necessarily follow that their methods were any worse (epistemically speaking) than methods that currently pass muster.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  Studies about people in general are of poor quality, due to difficult to define metrics. Even today, psychology and sociology studies aren't rigorous for the simple reason that it's hard to measure these things. Biological studies are hard too, it's hard to suss out the confounding variables and mechanisms of bodily functions. Just the premise of the "racial science" studies would render them invalid, how could they even have controlled for the myriad variables that we have no idea how to control today?
  - foldr 9y ago
    Which studies are you referring to? If you don't have anything specific in mind, then you can't really judge the quality or compare it to the quality of comparable research today.
    - lotsofpulp 9y ago
      As I wrote above, studies about people, which the aforementioned Nazi stuff would fall into. I don't have a specific study in mind, but I do know that the further you stray from math/physics/chemistry, creating metrics and isolating variables is very, very difficult. I don't need a specific study to know that. Any sociology/economic/psychology research should be taken with a grain of salt.
      - foldr 9y ago
        >Any sociology/economic/psychology research should be taken with a grain of salt. So how is that not an example of "science going wrong"? Unless you are proposing that science is right by definition, or that governments should ignore most of the branches of science that are actually relevant to government. There are plenty of branches of physics that are at least as speculative as sociology, economics and psychology (e.g. cosmology). The only difference is that these branches of physics have few political implications.
        lotsofpulp 9y ago
        It's not going wrong, unless it's making conclusive statements that are beyond the strengths of the study. That's why I say grain of salt. I understand what you're saying, but my point is that it's not science or the scientific method that results in undesirable outcomes, such as the Nazi example, but just a lack of any other good option. Governments (and people) should evaluate the merits of the information they receive. Properly conducted and repeated experiments with noted mechanisms of actions (e.g. vaccines) should have more weight than studies about trickle down wealth or whatever. Obviously, decisions have to be made, and some will be wrong unfortunately.

emodendroket 9y ago

The citation of "Godwin's law" in this way is so tiresome. Firstly, the law just says that Nazis will come up -- not that bringing them up necessarily invalidates one's argument. Godwin himself has endorsed likening some groups to Nazis. More importantly, the example of the Nazis is useful in an ethical argument, because they're an almost universally acknowledged example of evil. Much like we aim to test our programs with extreme inputs, we can use the "extreme input" of Nazism to test our ethical arguments. If I posit some universal ethical standard, and then find that it doesn't seem to work if we take the Nazis, we've proven by counterexample that my standard is not universal after all.